A business owner of an entertainment tavern who is a business establishment harmful to juveniles shall verify the age of the person in question when he/she employs an employee.

In light of the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Protection Act, the proprietor of a business establishment harmful to entertainment, such as an entertainment drinking house, has a very strict responsibility for not employing a juvenile for the purpose of protecting the juvenile. Thus, when the proprietor of an entertainment drinking house employs an employee at the relevant entertainment business establishment, the proprietor of the entertainment drinking house shall verify the subject’s age based on a resident registration certificate or other evidence with public probative value of age to the extent of the same age. If there is doubt that the photograph and the actual objects of the resident registration certificate presented by the subject are different, the juvenile is obliged to take additional age verification measures, such as making a detailed comparison of his/her resident registration certificate with his/her photograph and actual objects, or making him/her open his/her address or resident registration number on his/her resident registration certificate.

Articles 1, 24(1) and (3) (see current Article 29(1) and (3)), and 50 Subparag. 2 (see current Article 58 Subparag. 4) of the former Juvenile Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11048, Sept. 15, 201);

Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2425 Decided June 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1896) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do255 Decided April 28, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7954 Decided December 8, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2006Do477 Decided March 23, 2006

Defendant

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 2013No374 decided June 28, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant was either aware of the fact that the Defendant was a juvenile or not guilty of having been employed by Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 1, etc.”) who was a juvenile on May 3, 2012 for profit, and that the Defendant employed Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 1, etc.”) as a juvenile on May 3, 2012.

2. A. In light of the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Protection Act, a business owner of a business establishment harmful to entertainment, such as an entertainment drinking house, shall not employ a juvenile for the purpose of protecting the juvenile. Thus, in employing an employee at the relevant business establishment, the owner of an entertainment drinking house shall verify the subject's age based on a resident registration certificate or evidence with public probative value of age to the extent similar to that of his/her resident registration certificate. If there is doubt that there is a difference between the photograph and the real on the resident registration certificate presented by the person concerned, the juvenile is obliged to take additional age verification measures such as reducing his/her status and age and reducing employment of the entertainment business establishment in light of the vulnerable employment conditions of the entertainment business, etc.

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record of the first instance judgment, around 22:00 on May 3, 2012, ① Nonindicted 1 et al. presented three copies of the Defendant’s resident registration certificates to the husband Nonindicted 4, who was in the Defendant’s work together with the Defendant at the entertainment drinking house operated by the Defendant. Nonindicted 4, et al., did not look at the face of Nonindicted 1 et al. on his resident registration certificates and the face of Nonindicted 1 et al., and had the sender, etc. enter his personal information in the entertainment drinking house register. ② Nonindicted 4, et al. reported that Nonindicted 1 et al. were different from his photograph and body on his resident registration certificates that he was found to have been employed by Nonindicted 1 et al.; ③ Nonindicted 4, et al. submitted copies of the third party’s resident registration certificates presented by Nonindicted 1 et al. to an investigation agency to find out the fact that he was employed by the investigation agency based on his personal record and received temporary investigation.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, if there is doubt that the photographs and objects on the resident registration certificate presented by Nonindicted 1, etc. are different from those on the business establishment harmful to juveniles, the Defendant, who operates a business establishment harmful to juveniles, has a duty to take measures for age verification in a more active manner, such as viewing the pictures and objects in detail in order to protect juveniles. Nevertheless, Nonindicted 1, etc.’s resident registration certificate presented by the third party and employing women and allowing them to enter into entertainment bars, shall be deemed to have failed to fulfill all necessary measures to confirm the age of juveniles on the business establishment harmful to juveniles.

C. If so, there is room to view that the defendant had dolusence at least about the fact that the defendant employed the non-indicted 1, etc. as a juvenile and allowed them to receive entertainment in entertainment taverns. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty of age verification under the Juvenile Protection Act, thereby making it difficult to readily conclude that the defendant knew that the non-indicted 1, etc. knew that he was a juvenile or was not able to receive a juvenile even if he was a juvenile.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)